Re: Wem nützt der Staat? / Dazu ein Artikel (engl.)

verfasst von JüKü, 18.02.2002, 23:45

<div>
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#002864">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=894</font>
</div>


 
<div>
<font size="2"><font face="Verdana" color="#002864" size="5"><strong>Blame It
on the Rain</strong></font>
</div>


 


<font size="4">by Robert P. Murphy</font>




[Posted February 18, 2002]


<p align="left"><img align="right" border="0" src="http://www.mises.org/images/glassofwater.gif" width="142" height="174">New
York City is in trouble. Rainfall has been far below its historical level,
raising the specter of water shortages. Fortunately, the government has a
plan. A three-phase <em>Drought Management Plan</em>, to be specific.
According to the City of New York’s Department
of Environmental Protection:



As conditions dictate the declaration of the successive phases of the
City’s drought response plan, certain actions are to be implemented. For a
Drought Watch, the DEP responses are primarily operational, while activities
that involve the consumer community are primarily informative and voluntary.
For a Drought Warning, voluntary use restrictions are heightened and other
City agencies are required to modify their operations. When a Drought
Emergency is declared, rules and sanctions for failure to comply with them
are imposed.

<p align="left">The ultimate reliance on coercion is the essence of all
government"solutions." When the government identifies a problem--in
this case, people wishing to use more water than is available--it simply
declares the relevant behavior illegal, and levies fines and prison sentences
to achieve obedience.


<p align="left">In the market, in contrast, scarce resources are allocated to
their most important uses by the voluntary rationing of the unhampered price
system. In the market, no threats or fines are needed to temper the appetites
of consumers. Everyone can consume as much as they want, so long as they are
willing to pay for it. Items that are in short supply have their prices driven
up, which in turn reduces the quantities people are willing to purchase.


<p align="left">The standard response to such observations is that the"necessities"
of life--electricity, natural gas, and above all, drinking water--are far too
important to leave to the vagaries of market provision. Surely people must be
placed above profits!


<p align="left">This argument simply assumes that government
employees can provide services more reliably than profit-hungry entrepreneurs.
But everybody knows that there is no contest between government operations and
private business. During the hot summer months, when public utilities impose
rolling blackouts and mandatory water restrictions, we never find Budweiser
restricting beer sales to even-numbered days, or Oscar Mayer banning hot dog
usage at cookouts. Consumers take it for granted that the products they desire
will always be available to them.[1]


<p align="left">This doesn’t mean the market is perfect; no human
institution is. During the Fourth of July rush, for example, a particular
store may run out of paper plates. But certainly an entire city will
never have this happen. In contrast to monopolized public utilities, there is
a diffusion of responsibility on the market, where each good has multiple
vendors. Even if some make mistakes and forecast poorly, other
entrepreneurs--eager to lure away customers--are there to fill the gap. It is
absolutely absurd that the most important goods and services are the ones
reserved for shoddy government provision.


<p align="left">Cynics may attribute the water shortages and draconian
regulations to the lust for power that characterizes the would-be tyrants and
busybodies who staff government agencies. Although this is undoubtedly true in
many cases, the problem with public utilities is more fundamental. Even if
government employees were the selfless servants they claim to be, without
competition and market prices, they would still be incapable of rationally
managing the water supply.


<p align="left">Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that under socialism, a system
where the"means of production" are owned collectively (i.e., by the
government), rational economic calculation is simply impossible. Even though
they might possess detailed statistics concerning resource supplies,
technological formulas, and consumer desires, the central planners would
nonetheless be unable to select the most efficient uses for a given resource.
Their decision to produce more of one good rather than another would be
completely arbitrary.


<p align="left">We see this in the present drought situation. The city
government’s plan takes into account the capacity of reservoirs, the normal
usage of residents and businesses, and the latest weather forecasts. But the
components of this plan are largely arbitrary. Under the"Drought
Emergency Rules," citizens can’t wash their vehicles with a hose, but
they may water their lawns from 7-9 a.m. and 7-9 p.m., but again only if it is
an odd-numbered day and their house number is odd (and likewise for even
numbers). Plant nurseries may continue to use water, but only at 95 percent of
their previous levels. Restaurants must stop serving water, unless
specifically requested by patrons. All showerheads must have a maximum
performance of three gallons per minute at 60 psi. Finally, a"SAVE WATER"
sign--the dimensions and appearance of which are also specified in the
plan--must be placed in all dwellings holding over four families.


<p align="left">It is clear that this batch of one-size-fits-all regulations
is completely inattentive to the differences among individuals, whose unique
circumstances and tastes require different levels of water consumption. During
a drought, the bureaucratic rules will lead some (especially those who flout
the law) to consume water that is more urgently needed by others. But without
the market test of profit and loss, the government will be unable to identify
these people. It is obviously economically inefficient (not to mention tragic)
if one person waters his lawn while somebody else dies of thirst. But it may
also be wasteful in the same sense if golf courses become brown while car
washes remain open. When making these sorts of choices, government officials
have no feedback and thus operate in the dark.


<p align="left">Under the market system, each individual determines how much
he or she consumes. Those who enjoy long showers may take them, so long as
they are willing to pay the extra cost. The market price signals how valuable
a marginal unit of a good is to"the community," since at any time
the market price is exactly how much others are paying for the good. In
times of drought, the price of water (if provided on the market) would rise to
discourage frivolous use and to encourage imports from neighboring regions.
There would be no"water shortages" on the free market, just as we
never have beer or hot dog shortages.


<p align="left">The City of New York monopolizes the distribution of water,
and as such the supply is always in jeopardy. Rather than study the details of
the <em>Drought Management Plan</em>, New York residents would be wiser to
pray for rain.


<div>
<hr align="left" SIZE="1" width="33%">
</div>


Robert P. Murphy, a Rowley Fellow of the Mises Institute, is an economics
graduate student at New York University. See his Mises.org <font color="#000080" size="2">Articles
Archive</font> and send him <font color="#000080" size="2">MAIL</font>.


<div>
<hr align="left" SIZE="1" width="33%">
</div>


[1]
This difference has nothing to do with the finite water supply. After all, the
supply of diamonds is finite, too, yet we never hear of a diamond shortage.
The ultimate proof of the government’s culpability is the fact that
consumers can always turn to (market-provided) bottled water in an
emergency.


</font>

<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Jeder, der Biotech-Aktien hat, - Holmes, 18.02.2002, 21:54
  • Ach Holmes... - Zardoz, 18.02.2002, 21:59
    • deine Staatsfeindlichkeit wird langsam albern - Taktiker, 18.02.2002, 22:16
      • Re: deine Staatsfeindlichkeit wird langsam albern / @Taktiker - JÃœKÃœ, 18.02.2002, 22:34
        • Re: deine Staatsfeindlichkeit wird langsam albern / @Taktiker - Taktiker, 18.02.2002, 22:55
          • Re: deine Staatsfeindlichkeit wird langsam albern / @Taktiker - JüKü, 18.02.2002, 23:11
            • nimm Enron! - Taktiker, 19.02.2002, 00:20
          • Re: deine Staatsfeindlichkeit wird langsam albern / @Taktiker - Standing Bear, 18.02.2002, 23:15
            • Wem nützt der Staat? - Zardoz, 18.02.2002, 23:23
              • Re: Wem nützt der Staat? - Standing Bear, 18.02.2002, 23:38
                • Es gibt keine dummen Fragen... - Zardoz, 19.02.2002, 00:32
              • Re: Wem nützt der Staat? / Dazu ein Artikel (engl.) - JüKü, 18.02.2002, 23:45
                • Wie immer: Gutes gewollt aber schlecht gemacht. Danke! (owT) - Zardoz, 18.02.2002, 23:59
              • na Dir sehr wenig... - Taktiker, 18.02.2002, 23:49
                • Weißt Du eigentlich... - Zardoz, 19.02.2002, 00:13
                  • und wieviel genommen? - Taktiker, 19.02.2002, 00:42
                    • Oder was dafür bekommen? - Zardoz, 19.02.2002, 01:21
          • Albern - Zardoz, 18.02.2002, 23:15
            • Who wants to be a millionaire - Taktiker, 18.02.2002, 23:37
              • auf den Punkt gebracht! (owT) - dira, 18.02.2002, 23:45
              • Re: Who wants to be a millionaire - Respekt Taktiker - nereus, 19.02.2002, 08:22
          • Re: @Taktiker - Gemeinschaftsfunktionen sind Notwendig - André, 18.02.2002, 23:50
            • Re: @Taktiker - Gemeinschaftsfunktionen sind Notwendig - Taktiker, 18.02.2002, 23:58
      • Staatsfeindlichkeit? - Zardoz, 18.02.2002, 23:09
      • Wähle doch bitte mal eine andere Ãœberschrift - Turon, 19.02.2002, 11:43
  • Re: Jeder, der Biotech-Aktien hat, - ManfredZ, 18.02.2002, 22:33
  • Re: Jeder, der Biotech-Aktien hat, - Herbi, dem Bremser, 18.02.2002, 22:50